BubbaBuddhist wrote:I think it's easy to be a "passive" vegetarian, very easy in fact. I know people moan about how hard it is to quit eating meat like it's a heroic struggle with hellish demons from the lower realms.

They have never gone hungry for more than an hour let alone a week!

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

polarbuddha101 wrote:Does the Buddha anywhere in the Pali canon suggest that lay followers of the Buddha should not purchase meat?

No, there is no direct reference. In at least once instance there is a lay follower who apparently purchased food at the market for the Buddha and/or his monks which contained meat, when the Jains complained, "General Siha has this very day slaughtered a large creature to feed it to the monk Gotama and he is going to eat it knowing that it was slaughtered specifically for him." (Anguttara Nikaya IV,187) (It was not killed specifically for Buddha and/or his monks.)

Other suttas are permeated with nonviolence, the benefits of nonviolence, not killing or causing to kill living sentient beings, thus, these debates and therefore, we need to make our own decisions.

polarbuddha101 wrote:Does the Buddha anywhere in the Pali canon suggest that lay followers of the Buddha should not purchase meat?

No, there is no direct reference. In at least once instance there is a lay follower who apparently purchased food at the market for the Buddha and/or his monks which contained meat, when the Jains complained, "General Siha has this very day slaughtered a large creature to feed it to the monk Gotama and he is going to eat it knowing that it was slaughtered specifically for him." (Anguttara Nikaya IV,187) (It was not killed specifically for Buddha and/or his monks.)

Other suttas are permeated with nonviolence, the benefits of nonviolence, not killing or causing to kill living sentient beings, thus, these debates and therefore, we need to make our own decisions.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying this discussion can't be fruitful or important just because there is no sutta where the Buddha asks lay people to be vegetarians if they can afford it, I was just wondering if there was such a reference. Anyway, here is a series of questions that if answered satisfactorily, I believe would lead to much clarification of the issue at hand. Satisfactorily not meaning any pre-conceived answers I may have come up with but rather a thoughtful answer that seriously and intelligently answers the question(s) at hand.

Does a vegetarian actually save animals from being slaughtered or perhaps just prevent a few more animals from being bred?

It would be my understanding that once a cow/livestock animal is born on a farm, it's destined for slaughter/becoming a milk cow (then maybe later slaughtered). So being a vegetarian isn't going to save animals in the long run, although some livestock may live slightly longer lives as a result of vegetarians cutting down on overall demand for meat products in a given year.

If less animals are bred as a result of the combined reduction in demand from vegetarians, are vegetarians actually saving beings from suffering (accepting rebirth)?

To what extent does responsibility extend in the causal chain? Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the Buddha didn't say it was bad for lay followers to buy meat. If every individual is responsible for their part in the causal chain even if they are two-four times removed from the source then what does that say about other products we buy that lead to the death of living beings and beings whose species are disappearing around the globe rapidly. For example, certain ingredients in shampoo are harvested from trees that are being grown in southeast asia and vast tracts of forest are being cut down to make way for these trees, hence tigers in indonesia have lost much territory, been killed and are dying out in that area. To what extent is it wrong to live in a sprawling suburb instead of a densely packed city given that suburbs take up more land, thus cause more habitat to be removed from the wild and which causes the deaths of thousands of animals in the process of building? Is there a slippery slope once we start taking personal responsibility for actions not done by us, not seen or heard by us, not capable of being stopped by us and not explicitly approved by us? Does eating meat imply the tacit consent to the farmer to slaughter living beings even though that person eating meat would never harm a living being willingly themselves and who would by default become a vegetarian if the livestock industry stopped altogether? Given the enormity of the livestock industry, does your not eating meat really make a difference and on what basis would you make that assertion? Finally, do people who live in well developed nations, nations without significant poverty or the threat of famine or malnutrition if a vegetarian diet was taken up, have a greater ethical responsibility to become vegetarians due to the fact that they can actually afford to do so?

"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."

Cittasanto wrote:your example has purely come from the perspective of ill-will not until later did it swap to non-violence in a separate non-comparable example and altered initial example.

Hi Cittasanto

In Buddhism nothing is permanent, everything is subject to change

Graham

sure, but who said anything was?but do pay attention to what I was replying to! you may of missed something.

Last edited by Cittasanto on Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

David N. Snyder wrote:Other suttas are permeated with nonviolence, the benefits of nonviolence, not killing or causing to kill living sentient beings....

I think it's important to recognise this.

but that doesn;t mean you load all your eggs in one basket when there are different things to use (that maybe more appropriate.)

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

Cittasanto wrote:but that doesn;t mean you load all your eggs in one basket when there are different things to use (that maybe more appropriate.)

Isn't it reasonable to consider the suttas as a whole when looking at ethical issues?

It is an idiomatic phrase meaning (here) not to apply more meaning to a word/ethical explanation than is already there. Something which does happen on a regular basis in this thread. 6 ostrich eggs don't carry well in a egg carton designed for 6 chicken eggs.

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

Cittasanto wrote:but that doesn;t mean you load all your eggs in one basket when there are different things to use (that maybe more appropriate.)

Isn't it reasonable to consider the suttas as a whole when looking at ethical issues?

It is an idiomatic phrase meaning (here) not to apply more meaning to a word/ethical explanation than is already there. Something which does happen on a regular basis in this thread. 6 ostrich eggs don't carry well in a egg carton designed for 6 chicken eggs.

I don't understand. If the suttas are permeated with nonviolence, the benefits of nonviolence, not killing or causing to kill living sentient beings, etc, are you saying we should ignore all that? Are you saying we should we ignore the spirit of non-harm embodied in the precepts, and treat them instead like bureacratic regulations which we can interpret to our own advantage?

"I ride tandem with the random, Things don't run the way I planned them, In the humdrum."Peter Gabriel lyric

porpoise wrote:Isn't it reasonable to consider the suttas as a whole when looking at ethical issues?

It is an idiomatic phrase meaning (here) not to apply more meaning to a word/ethical explanation than is already there. Something which does happen on a regular basis in this thread. 6 ostrich eggs don't carry well in a egg carton designed for 6 chicken eggs.

I don't understand. If the suttas are permeated with nonviolence, the benefits of nonviolence, not killing or causing to kill living sentient beings, etc, are you saying we should ignore all that? Are you saying we should we ignore the spirit of non-harm embodied in the precepts, and treat them instead like bureacratic regulations which we can interpret to our own advantage?

you prove my point by doing exactly what I was cautioning against!

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

porpoise wrote:I don't understand. If the suttas are permeated with nonviolence, the benefits of nonviolence, not killing or causing to kill living sentient beings, etc, are you saying we should ignore all that? Are you saying we should we ignore the spirit of non-harm embodied in the precepts, and treat them instead like bureacratic regulations which we can interpret to our own advantage?

you prove my point by doing exactly what I was cautioning against!

I still don't understand. You seem to be arguing against understanding the general principles of Buddhist ethics?

"I ride tandem with the random, Things don't run the way I planned them, In the humdrum."Peter Gabriel lyric

porpoise wrote:I don't understand. If the suttas are permeated with nonviolence, the benefits of nonviolence, not killing or causing to kill living sentient beings, etc, are you saying we should ignore all that? Are you saying we should we ignore the spirit of non-harm embodied in the precepts, and treat them instead like bureacratic regulations which we can interpret to our own advantage?

you prove my point by doing exactly what I was cautioning against!

I still don't understand. You seem to be arguing against understanding the general principles of Buddhist ethics?

not in the slightest! I am arguing for the appropriate application of meaning. not applying more meaning than is already there.

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

polarbuddha101 wrote:Anyway, here is a series of questions that if answered satisfactorily, I believe would lead to much clarification of the issue at hand. Satisfactorily not meaning any pre-conceived answers I may have come up with but rather a thoughtful answer that seriously and intelligently answers the question(s) at hand.

Hi Polar Buddha,

I'm not sure if I am able to give you answers that will be satisfactory. Anything that is constructed (which also includes your questions, incidentally) is by their nature going to be unsatisfactory, at least in some ways. That is due to the anicca... the lack of inherent finality.

It's not going to stop me from trying to share my views.

Please note that the argument which follows don't really necessarily have anything to do with the idea of buying meat, or eating it (it just happens to be the context for me to write in), any more than it has to do with making an effort to pay attention to our own habits, intention and volition, how they might color our perceptions of the world... and therefore how they might affect the way we do our own practices... along with the way we frame our own ideas to others (whether it be questions, arguments (veiled or otherwise), responses, etc).

I think paying attention to these kind of things would be by far more important to our practice, than whatever ideas there might be about our food consumption pattern.

Does a vegetarian actually save animals from being slaughtered or perhaps just prevent a few more animals from being bred?

It would be my understanding that once a cow/livestock animal is born on a farm, it's destined for slaughter/becoming a milk cow (then maybe later slaughtered). So being a vegetarian isn't going to save animals in the long run, although some livestock may live slightly longer lives as a result of vegetarians cutting down on overall demand for meat products in a given year.

If less animals are bred as a result of the combined reduction in demand from vegetarians, are vegetarians actually saving beings from suffering (accepting rebirth)?

If less animals are being born, then that means there are less of them being born. It's that simple.

Why the need for all of that papanca? Where did it come from, exactly? I think this is something which might be more worth investigating, rather than making some convoluted interpretation for an imaginary scenario... especially just to affirm one's views. That is not what will lead to liberation.

To what extent does responsibility extend in the causal chain? Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the Buddha didn't say it was bad for lay followers to buy meat. If every individual is responsible for their part in the causal chain even if they are two-four times removed from the source then what does that say about other products we buy that lead to the death of living beings and beings whose species are disappearing around the globe rapidly. For example, certain ingredients in shampoo are harvested from trees that are being grown in southeast asia and vast tracts of forest are being cut down to make way for these trees, hence tigers in indonesia have lost much territory, been killed and are dying out in that area. To what extent is it wrong to live in a sprawling suburb instead of a densely packed city given that suburbs take up more land, thus cause more habitat to be removed from the wild and which causes the deaths of thousands of animals in the process of building? Is there a slippery slope once we start taking personal responsibility for actions not done by us, not seen or heard by us, not capable of being stopped by us and not explicitly approved by us?

All of that seems like too much worry... which is papanca.

If someone sees that there is something which he can do, then he should do it. It's that simple. Really! There's no need to worry about what he can't do... or to build a kind of worldview in which he feels like he can't do anything.

It reminds me of the sutta where a man just allows himself to be taken, like a rag doll, only to be carried over to a fire pit, and then thrown in. To me, that is underdeveloped volition. It's no good for practice.

Does eating meat imply the tacit consent to the farmer to slaughter living beings even though that person eating meat would never harm a living being willingly themselves and who would by default become a vegetarian if the livestock industry stopped altogether?

If a person buys a meat, then he's handed over his money to a slaughterhouse. There's no question about that. (The market is only a middleman.) To not acknowledge this, especially if the person is aware of where the meat came from, would be an exercise in willful ignorance.

I don't think that to intentionally cultivate one's own ignorance (and also the poor volition) is even good at all for the practice. Discernment is one of the seven factors for the awakening (dhamma vicaya). We should exercise that to its fullest if we want a mind that is well trained, and also able to tell the difference in between things.

If someone in here, for example, wants to try justify buying their meat via using the Pali Canon... then I think they should know that the bhikkhus don't buy or even procure their own meat. They basically wait for it. (Or at least I think the sincere ones do.) This difference seems to be quite significant to me. If the person can't see this... then I think there might be no hope for that person to extricate himself from any kind of dukkha, especially the subtle ones.

Given the enormity of the livestock industry, does your not eating meat really make a difference and on what basis would you make that assertion?

There are 10 billion people in this world. I think that killing just one person should also be seen as insignificant considering this number. It's not going to make any kind of dent to the population, at all... yet, it's still a gross action. Why?

Just in case anyone in here doesn't realize the enormity of that above number: If a person kills 1,000 people a week, and then tries to keep up with that action weekly, till all of the current population is completely wiped out... that's going to take him 192,307 years to complete the task. That even makes the killing of 1,000 people in a week seem like it should be insignificant.

Obviously, none of that has to do with numbers.

It has to do with the kamma and its fruits... which includes the actions coming out of everything and everyone that are around you; how you do your practice within that; whether you can manage to get your own habits, intention and volition trained well enough (not to mention whether your own discernment has been developed well enough, for you to be able to train these, in a way that is wholesome), so that you can be liberated from all the dukkha, which will inevitably arise out of all of that.

There's a famous saying from the Dhammapada that talks about drops of water dripping inside a jar...

The insignificance (or the enormity) of it all has nothing to do with it, period. It's not for the lazy, or even fainthearted. The Mahayana traditions even have these strange ideas of there being various kinds of bodhisattvas, who aren't even fazed by any of that, for Buddha's sake. I believe that Theravadin practitioners are capable of developing that kind of strong volition in their own practices... without having to be a bodhisattva.

Finally, do people who live in well developed nations, nations without significant poverty or the threat of famine or malnutrition if a vegetarian diet was taken up, have a greater ethical responsibility to become vegetarians due to the fact that they can actually afford to do so?

As far as I know, many of the people in India are poor by our standards... many of them are (or were?) vegetarians. Also, we still would need to have plenty of food for the cows, if we wanted meat. Even the chickens, if we wanted a regular supply available.

I want to stress again that none of this really has anything to do with the idea of meat eating, but to do with our perceptions and views, how they're constructed, and how these would affect our own practice. There are always a lot of subtle things going on with that... it would take a sharp mind to discern all of these wholesome and unwholesome states. It takes a lot of hard work, and meditation.

We really need to develop our mindfulness and concentration, to the extent where we will not lose ourselves so easily in that kind of fabrications... so that we will not get swept away into the wild ocean of samsara, which makes up this world.

I don't know how long it's been since I last told this little horror story--probably been since the days of e-Sangha, but when I was in the second grade, and that was around 1967 I guess, our class went to the chicken slaughterhouse on a field trip. Don't ask me why, or what they were thinking. perhaps it was a sort of career day for us little ne'er-do-wells. Or part of our education to teach us where our food came from.

Through one of those confluences of kamma, my uncle and his wife at the time worked there. I say "wife at the time" because I've lost count of which wife that was or how many times he married; like most of the males in my family he practiced serial monogamy. I think with my uncle I lost count at wife number twelve or thirteen. My dad was married seven times and my brother five. Anyway, my uncle and his spouse sat along an assembly-line in bloody aprons, with squawking chickens hanging by their feet from a moving belt. The chickens were clearly terrified. My uncle waved at me. The workers sitting at the line fed the chicken's necks into a guide--two steel rods, basically--which stretched their necks and held them in place as the moving belt conveyed them toward a spinning sawblade, which slit their throats, and death was neither instantaneous nor painless. From the slasher the chickens were conveyed to a scalding water bath, which apparently loosened their feathers, and they passed by people who plucked them. Not all the chickens were quite dead when they hit the scalding area, but all were dead when they left it. I know this: you don't want rebirth as an animal.

Many of my companions thought the whole process was cool. Some of the girls couldn't watch it. Most were indifferent. I was horrified. I identified with the struggling birds and felt a desperate need to help them. It seemed wrong to me that this was being done to them. Remember I was around seven at the time and I didn't quite understand the purpose of it all. I wondered why my uncle didn't do something about it.

Later, I put together that these living birds became the fried chicken that we ate for dinner. This didn't seem to bother anyone and I wondered why it didn't. That summer my uncle brought home a fish he'd caught, dropped it in the yard and came into the house. When I saw the fish was still alive, I got my sand bucket, filled it with water and poured it on the fish in an effort to save it. I kept doing this for a long time until my mom eventually noticed and brought me inside.

I could never eat fish or seafood again, and chicken, fuggeddabouddit. Seeing something die horribly to make a meal kinda ruins your appetite. But I was always a strange kid, I always loved vegetables. It didn't matter what they were, even the dreaded cauliflower. Some of you express serious doubts about past-life imprints; for me there's little question something carried over from somewhere into this corporeal shell. I was born into a family of uneducated, ignorant ruffians and from an early age yearned for refinement and sensitivity. Art, music and culture from the 19th century feels like home to me, and vegetarianism was as natural as breathing. Nothing in my environment accounted for any of this. Make of it what you will. I believe I was a formerly a fop.

BB

Author of Redneck Buddhism: or Will You Reincarnate as Your Own Cousin?

It reminded me of the time when I took my girls and my wife to the slaughterhouse in Baltimore. We couldn't have arrived at a more opportune time to come to understanding the process that our meat follows on its way to our dinner table.

We walked into a ramped overhead-door entrance just as they were hauling a beef steer into the air with the use of a chain slung around its left rear leg. It was screaming loudly, and continued to do so as we walked into the conveyor area where hundreds of beasts were hanging from hooks.

The girls were terrified, my wife was terrified, I was terrified. We all sympathized with the beast. But the memory which has persisted in all of our minds is the very second when the beast ceased to scream. All that we could hear from that point was the clacking of the converyor as the rollers crossed over the gaps in the connecting sections.

We all realized at that moment that a life had ended.

That was the last "hind quarter" of beef that we ever ordered.

Ironically, it is a tour that I recommend for every carnivore, and omnivore so that they might learn from direct experience from whence, where, whom, and how their cherished sizzling steaks are derived. Make sure to bring the kids.

What Makes an Elder? :A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

I am sure this question shold have been discussed here many times. I thought I undestood this rule but after reading the follwing, this queston came back to me agian.

"If a bhikkhu is given meat on alms round and he has no knowledge about how the animal died, he has to 'receive it with attentiveness."

I am a lay follower I know the animals were killed in a slaughter house. I know that they are raise for human consumption. I have the choice not to buy and eat the meat. I am not a mendicant monk. Does it mean I shold not buy and eat meat?

In western countries vegetarianism has recently increased in popularity and this has led to some questioning about bhikkhus and meat-eating. (In less materially developed countries the question is more about 'what, if anything, is there to eat?')

The question of monks' eating meat is an old one that was originally raised by the 'renegade monk' Ven. Devadatta. He asked the Buddha to prohibit bhikkhus from eating fish and flesh in what seems was a ploy to take over the leadership of the Sangha. (The 'stricter ascetic' tactic.) The Buddha had already made a strict rule for both bhikkhus and lay people about not taking life (see Killing.) so He did not agree to Ven. Devadatta's new formulation.

The Buddha did allow bhikkhus to eat meat and fish[88] except under the following circumstances:

If a bhikkhu sees, hears or suspects that it has been killed for him, he may not eat it.[89] (M.I,369)

If a bhikkhu is given meat on alms round and he has no knowledge about how the animal died[90] he has to 'receive it with attentiveness.' (See the Sekhiya Trainings.) He should be grateful and recollect that the food he is given is what enables him to continue to live the bhikkhu life, and that as a mendicant he is not in a position to choose what he gets. If he later comes to know the family and they ask him about Dhamma, he will be able to explain the precept about not killing. This may cause them to reflect on their attitude to meat eating.

An individual lay person can choose whether to be a vegetarian. Problems usually arise only when vegetarians want to impose their choice on others, and as meal times are normally a family or shared affair this can create tensions and misunderstandings.

An individual bhikkhu who lives on alms food cannot make such choices. Often the donors are unknown — perhaps not even Buddhist, or just starting to find out about Dhamma — and to refuse their generosity may so offend them that they never have anything to do with Dhamma again.

Finally it comes down to the lay people who go to the market to buy food to give to the bhikkhus. If they are vegetarian themselves or like to give vegetarian food, then the bhikkhu should receive that food with 'appreciation' — especially if it means that fewer animals are being slaughtered. Nevertheless, it should not become a political issue where other people are attacked for their behavior-------------------------------------

It depends.If, for example, you are at a fancy Chinese restaurant and you are invited to pick a fish or lobster from a tank that you want served to you cooked - its a breach of the first precept.If you order a side of lamb from a farmer/butcher that kills his stock to order - its a breach of the first precept.If you own a cow and you pay someone to slaughter and butcher the cow - its a breach of the first precept.

If you go to a supermarket and find hundreds of cuts of meat pre-packaged and for sale and you purchase some meat - then no. There is no causal link between your decision to purchase and the death of that animal.Having said that - many practitioners find themselves from time to time less inclined to purchase meat and less inclined to dogmatic dietary philosophies.kind regards,

Ben

Learn this from the waters:in mountain clefts and chasms,loud gush the streamlets,but great rivers flow silently.